Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Spatial Relations

Last week, city council candidate, Iraq vet, and homeless advocate Dorsol Plants played Joan Rivers to regular Cola columnist Dan Bertolet’s Johnny Carson. Dan’s on summer vacation for a few more days, so we’ve lined up another guest host, a city council candidate from long ago—Grant “Folk Rock“  Cogswell.

For 60,000 years, cities were built the same way—by measure of hand and foot, for the body and the brood. The Romans organized a city for an open plain: fast-forward to the opening of half a world: populated, but easy to enslave (South) or move and exterminate (North).

For us, this was recently vacated “wilderness”; Latin America squeezed into a full house. The automobile then, and status of last power standing. The vets, the children of immigrants, huddled in cities, saw freedom “out there.” What roads were built to—went up. There was shelter in lostness, in movement, the TV glazing it with oblivion. We grew up in that.

Mexico City—or rather, short for Distrito Federal, “D.F.,” (day effay)—is nothing like it. Even its new and wealthy, outlying districts face onto themselves. In L.A. the old residents bemoan Mexicanos’ dragging life into the street. Madrid in the 16th, 17th century centro (street vending banned and furtive since maxi-billionaire Carlos Slim bought up the ancient hulks); Paris in the outer boroughs from before the revolution; and beyond, in the busy streets that hug the rail lines or the little mercados that circle the stops for many buses. Low-rise, high altitude, and 90 percent of the population gets around on foot or transit. In a huddle of twenty-some million people, activity—commerce, play, cuisine, waiting (a moment, long enough just to buy a paper or sopes because it is never more than five minutes’ wait for a bus)—life is everywhere. Even the air is cleaner now.

The way of city living in Seattle is based on insulation: space, then wealth, then technology (the car) afforded. The urban landscape here is forbiddingly empty, and dull. Soon we will hustle for every dollar like the residents of D.F. do. We will be creative with that dead space, and the extra space in our homes, our parking lots.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been poor too long to think it’s any fun. But Seattle might be creative and communitarian enough–taking its cue from Pike Place Market (imagine an entire city like the Market! That’s D.F.)—to make this nightmare of a downturn into opportunity.

Cogswell’s first Cola installment is here.




  • tpn

    I don’t know where you have been, but those empty parking lots and “dull” one story buildings have been replaced with “dense” condos which are either empty, or occupied by people whose notes are underwater.

    In Paris, their poverty was exported to the suburbs. That is why they “light up” ever so often; French Police are just as willing to crack skulls as their US or Mexico counterparts. In the US, this movement of the poor into “deconcentrated” suburbs has been federal policy since the 1970s. Urbanism is just an updated component of that racist (yes I said it) policy that seeks to break up “urban” (read: black, latino, etc) communities and export them into fragments in the suburbs, so that thay can be more easily controlled; as you can see, the policy has done nothing to allivate poverty. It has brought upwardly mobile whites back the the cities though, hasn’t it?

    Oh, and what is the average wage in Mexico City? What happens to union leaders who get too uppity? Sounds like fucking paradise.

    Urbanism has always been gentrification and resettlement of people based on race and class, with “green” as its market based wrapping.

  • gloomy gus

    i look forward to the second draft!

  • Anonymous

    Heh. Reading that I was wondering if I was having a stroke and lost my ability to understand English.

  • Chris

    “For 60,000 years cities were built the same way ..” Huh?

    Can you name me a city that is 60,000 years old?

  • Cascadian

    I think Grant confused the beginning of human civilization (dating 10-12,000 years ago) with the beginning of human dispersal from Africa (60,000 years ago.) Behavioral modernity arose “soon” thereafter, certainly by 50,000 years ago. I guess if you squinted and defined “city” as “any settlement of behaviorally modern humans,” you could kind of make his timeline work, but that’s totally contrary to how everyone else in the world uses the term.

  • Barleywine

    Boca Raton?

  • Waxing Naustalgic

    yes, down with urbanization. too bad we’re not foraging and hunting still! Those were the days, before the yuppie enviros got hold of it all!

  • Anon

    Damn Grant, pass the shrooms bro!

  • Anonymous

    “…as you can see, the policy has done nothing to allivate poverty.”

    And the policy of leaving concentrated poor urban black populations has alleviated poverty?

    I think the urbanism movement has not harmed or solved the problems of entrenched poverty, crime and disfunction of America’s low-income ethnic and racial groups. It is a movement occurring independent of these problems due to increasing energy prices, a dissatisfaction with the suburban car-depednent lifestyle of one’s parents, etc. You make it sound like urbanism is some grand, racist conspiracy of Generation X.

  • Cave Man

    Seattle was built on a mud hill; and it shall return.

  • tpn

    “And the policy of leaving concentrated poor urban black populations has alleviated poverty?”

    That doesn’t even make sense, even as a red herring argument.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    Well, he could have posted a picture of his favorite upzone his company worked on, or suggested the 50,000 need light rail, but I guess I will accept a long story about hot dog vendors.

  • Anonymous

    Grant is just keeping with PC’s editorial policy of exaggerating by at least an entire order of magnitude… or maybe he has discovered that lost Mormon city described on the golden plates Joseph Smith found and then so unfortunately lost.

  • Grant Cogswell

    No, even Seattle’s ‘dense’ neighborhoods – with the exception of the middle of Pike/Pine – are deserted in all but working hours. Seattle’s false-density-by-gentrification is not the kind of change I’m talking about here.

    Mexico, and its capitol, are far from perfect – a ton of problems there, but much we can learn from.

  • Grant Cogswell

    No, even Seattle’s ‘dense’ neighborhoods – with the exception of the middle of Pike/Pine – are deserted in all but working hours. Seattle’s false-density-by-gentrification is not the kind of change I’m talking about here.

    Mexico, and its capitol, are far from perfect – a ton of problems there, but much we can learn from.

  • Barleywine

    Some of the residents are, anyway…

  • Roddy

    I don’t suppose it’s worth mentioning in a discussion comparing the DF and Seattle the fact that Seattle is about 1/16 the population of the DF.

  • Anonymous

    “Urbanism is just an updated component of that racist (yes I said it) policy that seeks to break up “urban” (read: black, latino, etc) communities and export them into fragments in the suburbs, so that thay can be more easily controlled; as you can see, the policy has done nothing to allivate poverty.”

    Maybe I’m not understanding your point, but you seemed to imply that the dispersal of impoverished urban ethnic and racial populations to areas outside of the city center was deleterious to those populations. To which I replied that the status quo of leaving concentrated ethnic ghettos in place in inner cities hadn’t seemed to produce prosperity for those populations, either. E.g. Detroit.

    So tell me, are these populations (and the broader society) better off in cities like Detroit where there is no gentrification or in NYC or Seattle where there is gentrification?

  • Barleywine

    You are making sense, T.

    tpn is geting caught up in the SE’s group-think, brought about and spread by the Fred/Ray/Tom unholy trinity; an unusual occurrence whereby there are three physical bodies sharing one brain between them.

    They also cry about the cramming of those same groups into one small community.

    Don’t try to figure it out.
    They’re going to need an exorcist.

  • sarah

    The gentrification in Seattle pushed the relatively impoverished population away from Seattle and caused many of them to have to live farther from their workplaces. They couldn’t afford the gentrification (i.e., their rental houses were sold and razed for condos, or sold to boomers to rehab for themselves, or the values on their “owned” houses went up and they couldn’t afford the taxes). It didn’t help them; it helped the people who moved in. And the CD became Madison Valley, because it sounded better.

  • sarah

    The gentrification in Seattle pushed the relatively impoverished population away from Seattle and caused many of them to have to live farther from their workplaces. They couldn’t afford the gentrification (i.e., their rental houses were sold and razed for condos, or sold to boomers to rehab for themselves, or the values on their “owned” houses went up and they couldn’t afford the taxes). It didn’t help them; it helped the people who moved in. And the CD became Madison Valley, because it sounded better.

  • Anonymous

    To the homeowner who sells because the taxes are increasing on her property, she at least benefits by having realized great appreciation on her property. That’s a pretty great benefit.

    To those who remain in the neighborhood (and many long-time residents do remain) as gentrification occurs, crime generally drops, beautification progresses, new transportation options are often added, new grocery stores typically open etc. And much of the development is not created by destroying houses or apartments, but by building over parking lots, abandoned structures (think Roosevelt neighborhood along 65th) and the like.

    That’s a lot of benefits for the long time residents. Granted, not everyone is benefitted when a new development commences; some renters may have to move elsewhere, but is that reason enough to lament all the benefits to the city and neighborhood of gentrification? Should we require Pareto efficiency of any development or policy?

  • Donolectic

    Loved this reply Barleywine, spot on.